Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 671

control, N = 341

treatment, N = 331

p-value2

age

67

50.77 ± 12.88 (25 - 74)

50.17 ± 13.49 (25 - 74)

51.38 ± 12.40 (31 - 72)

0.705

gender

67

0.856

f

46 (69%)

23 (68%)

23 (70%)

m

21 (31%)

11 (32%)

10 (30%)

occupation

67

0.922

day_training

1 (1.5%)

1 (2.9%)

0 (0%)

full_time

6 (9.0%)

4 (12%)

2 (6.1%)

homemaker

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

other

2 (3.0%)

0 (0%)

2 (6.1%)

part_time

11 (16%)

5 (15%)

6 (18%)

retired

15 (22%)

7 (21%)

8 (24%)

self_employ

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

student

1 (1.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.0%)

t_and_e

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

unemploy

21 (31%)

12 (35%)

9 (27%)

marital

67

>0.999

cohabitation

1 (1.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.0%)

divore

7 (10%)

4 (12%)

3 (9.1%)

married

14 (21%)

7 (21%)

7 (21%)

none

39 (58%)

20 (59%)

19 (58%)

seperation

3 (4.5%)

2 (5.9%)

1 (3.0%)

widow

3 (4.5%)

1 (2.9%)

2 (6.1%)

edu

67

0.997

bachelor

19 (28%)

9 (26%)

10 (30%)

diploma

12 (18%)

7 (21%)

5 (15%)

hd_ad

3 (4.5%)

2 (5.9%)

1 (3.0%)

postgraduate

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

primary

5 (7.5%)

2 (5.9%)

3 (9.1%)

secondary_1_3

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

secondary_4_5

14 (21%)

7 (21%)

7 (21%)

secondary_6_7

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

fam_income

67

0.822

10001_12000

4 (6.0%)

1 (2.9%)

3 (9.1%)

12001_14000

4 (6.0%)

2 (5.9%)

2 (6.1%)

14001_16000

5 (7.5%)

2 (5.9%)

3 (9.1%)

16001_18000

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

18001_20000

3 (4.5%)

3 (8.8%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

10 (15%)

6 (18%)

4 (12%)

2001_4000

9 (13%)

6 (18%)

3 (9.1%)

4001_6000

9 (13%)

4 (12%)

5 (15%)

6001_8000

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

8001_10000

6 (9.0%)

2 (5.9%)

4 (12%)

below_2000

9 (13%)

4 (12%)

5 (15%)

medication

67

57 (85%)

30 (88%)

27 (82%)

0.512

onset_duration

67

15.03 ± 11.66 (0 - 56)

16.60 ± 12.84 (1 - 56)

13.41 ± 10.23 (0 - 35)

0.266

onset_age

67

35.74 ± 14.16 (14 - 64)

33.57 ± 12.91 (14 - 58)

37.97 ± 15.21 (15 - 64)

0.206

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 671

control, N = 341

treatment, N = 331

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

67

3.16 ± 1.25 (1 - 5)

3.18 ± 1.29 (1 - 5)

3.15 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.936

recovery_stage_b

67

17.91 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)

17.76 ± 2.69 (9 - 23)

18.06 ± 2.65 (13 - 23)

0.651

ras_confidence

67

30.25 ± 4.80 (19 - 43)

29.56 ± 4.19 (19 - 40)

30.97 ± 5.33 (20 - 43)

0.232

ras_willingness

67

12.03 ± 1.96 (7 - 15)

11.85 ± 1.84 (9 - 15)

12.21 ± 2.09 (7 - 15)

0.458

ras_goal

67

17.48 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

17.41 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)

17.55 ± 3.05 (12 - 24)

0.857

ras_reliance

67

13.19 ± 2.87 (8 - 20)

12.88 ± 2.64 (8 - 18)

13.52 ± 3.09 (8 - 20)

0.370

ras_domination

67

10.00 ± 2.21 (3 - 15)

10.44 ± 1.99 (6 - 15)

9.55 ± 2.36 (3 - 14)

0.097

symptom

67

30.48 ± 9.93 (14 - 56)

31.26 ± 9.78 (14 - 52)

29.67 ± 10.16 (15 - 56)

0.514

slof_work

67

22.33 ± 4.80 (10 - 30)

22.32 ± 4.35 (15 - 30)

22.33 ± 5.30 (10 - 30)

0.993

slof_relationship

67

25.54 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)

25.09 ± 6.14 (13 - 35)

26.00 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

0.539

satisfaction

67

20.49 ± 6.87 (5 - 32)

18.97 ± 6.50 (5 - 29)

22.06 ± 6.98 (5 - 32)

0.065

mhc_emotional

67

11.16 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.74 ± 3.35 (3 - 17)

11.61 ± 4.26 (4 - 18)

0.355

mhc_social

67

14.69 ± 5.16 (6 - 26)

14.94 ± 5.01 (7 - 26)

14.42 ± 5.37 (6 - 26)

0.685

mhc_psychological

67

22.01 ± 5.92 (6 - 36)

21.53 ± 5.33 (10 - 33)

22.52 ± 6.52 (6 - 36)

0.500

resilisnce

67

16.58 ± 4.62 (6 - 27)

16.21 ± 4.42 (6 - 24)

16.97 ± 4.86 (7 - 27)

0.503

social_provision

67

13.67 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.59 (8 - 20)

14.12 ± 3.34 (5 - 20)

0.229

els_value_living

67

17.25 ± 2.99 (5 - 25)

16.62 ± 2.40 (12 - 22)

17.91 ± 3.40 (5 - 25)

0.077

els_life_fulfill

67

12.79 ± 3.30 (4 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.04 (5 - 17)

13.82 ± 3.28 (4 - 20)

0.011

els

67

30.04 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

28.41 ± 4.45 (20 - 36)

31.73 ± 6.25 (9 - 45)

0.015

social_connect

67

27.22 ± 9.24 (8 - 48)

28.09 ± 8.11 (8 - 45)

26.33 ± 10.33 (8 - 48)

0.441

shs_agency

67

14.34 ± 4.89 (3 - 24)

13.68 ± 4.54 (3 - 21)

15.03 ± 5.21 (3 - 24)

0.260

shs_pathway

67

16.57 ± 3.96 (4 - 24)

16.09 ± 3.82 (8 - 24)

17.06 ± 4.11 (4 - 23)

0.319

shs

67

30.91 ± 8.36 (7 - 47)

29.76 ± 7.99 (13 - 45)

32.09 ± 8.70 (7 - 47)

0.258

esteem

67

12.64 ± 1.46 (10 - 18)

12.76 ± 1.50 (10 - 18)

12.52 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)

0.490

mlq_search

67

14.88 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)

14.85 ± 3.20 (6 - 21)

14.91 ± 3.69 (3 - 21)

0.947

mlq_presence

67

13.46 ± 4.16 (3 - 21)

13.38 ± 3.53 (5 - 20)

13.55 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

0.874

mlq

67

28.34 ± 6.79 (6 - 42)

28.24 ± 6.03 (12 - 40)

28.45 ± 7.60 (6 - 42)

0.896

empower

67

19.49 ± 4.17 (6 - 28)

19.03 ± 3.84 (11 - 24)

19.97 ± 4.49 (6 - 28)

0.360

ismi_resistance

67

14.58 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

14.26 ± 2.29 (11 - 19)

14.91 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

0.342

ismi_discrimation

67

11.39 ± 3.28 (5 - 19)

12.38 ± 2.81 (5 - 18)

10.36 ± 3.46 (5 - 19)

0.011

sss_affective

67

10.09 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)

10.74 ± 3.41 (3 - 18)

9.42 ± 4.27 (3 - 18)

0.169

sss_behavior

67

9.81 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)

10.65 ± 3.91 (3 - 18)

8.94 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)

0.081

sss_cognitive

67

8.34 ± 4.06 (3 - 18)

8.79 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)

7.88 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)

0.360

sss

67

28.24 ± 11.09 (9 - 54)

30.18 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)

26.24 ± 11.62 (9 - 54)

0.148

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.18

0.212

2.76, 3.59

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.025

0.303

-0.618, 0.568

0.934

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.311

0.341

-0.357, 0.980

0.366

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.063

0.467

-0.852, 0.978

0.893

Pseudo R square

0.017

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.8

0.470

16.8, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.296

0.670

-1.02, 1.61

0.660

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.061

0.686

-1.41, 1.28

0.929

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.503

0.937

-1.33, 2.34

0.594

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.868

27.9, 31.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.41

1.237

-1.01, 3.84

0.258

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.559

0.983

-1.37, 2.49

0.573

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.075

1.337

-2.69, 2.55

0.956

Pseudo R square

0.021

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.343

11.2, 12.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.359

0.488

-0.598, 1.32

0.464

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.821

0.358

-1.52, -0.119

0.028

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.642

0.486

-0.311, 1.60

0.195

Pseudo R square

0.036

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.4

0.548

16.3, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.134

0.781

-1.40, 1.67

0.865

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.832

0.626

-2.06, 0.394

0.191

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.41

0.851

-0.259, 3.08

0.106

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

12.9

0.483

11.9, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.633

0.689

-0.717, 1.98

0.361

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.274

0.464

-0.635, 1.18

0.558

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.691

0.630

-0.544, 1.93

0.280

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.378

9.70, 11.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.896

0.538

-1.95, 0.159

0.100

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.448

0.536

-1.50, 0.602

0.407

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.23

0.731

-0.199, 2.67

0.099

Pseudo R square

0.030

symptom

(Intercept)

31.3

1.711

27.9, 34.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.60

2.438

-6.38, 3.18

0.514

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.842

1.268

-3.33, 1.64

0.511

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.086

1.720

-3.28, 3.46

0.960

Pseudo R square

0.008

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.832

20.7, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.010

1.185

-2.31, 2.33

0.993

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.100

0.704

-1.48, 1.28

0.887

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.22

0.955

-3.10, 0.649

0.209

Pseudo R square

0.011

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

1.026

23.1, 27.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.912

1.462

-1.95, 3.78

0.535

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.14

1.007

-3.11, 0.833

0.265

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.479

1.367

-2.20, 3.16

0.728

Pseudo R square

0.013

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.0

1.199

16.6, 21.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.09

1.709

-0.260, 6.44

0.075

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

1.387

-1.70, 3.74

0.468

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.86

1.887

-5.56, 1.84

0.330

Pseudo R square

0.034

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.651

9.46, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.871

0.927

-0.947, 2.69

0.351

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.772

0.638

-0.479, 2.02

0.235

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.37

0.867

-3.07, 0.331

0.124

Pseudo R square

0.010

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.9

0.921

13.1, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.517

1.313

-3.09, 2.06

0.695

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.22

1.069

-0.878, 3.31

0.262

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.44

1.453

-4.29, 1.41

0.328

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

1.069

19.4, 23.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.986

1.524

-2.00, 3.97

0.520

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.00

1.180

-1.31, 3.31

0.402

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.21

1.604

-5.36, 0.933

0.176

Pseudo R square

0.007

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.764

14.7, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.764

1.089

-1.37, 2.90

0.485

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.558

0.756

-0.925, 2.04

0.466

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.103

1.027

-1.91, 2.12

0.921

Pseudo R square

0.013

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.502

12.3, 14.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.886

0.716

-0.517, 2.29

0.219

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.380

0.573

-1.50, 0.742

0.511

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.179

0.779

-1.35, 1.71

0.820

Pseudo R square

0.027

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.505

15.6, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.29

0.720

-0.119, 2.70

0.077

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.649

0.548

-0.424, 1.72

0.243

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.574

0.744

-2.03, 0.885

0.445

Pseudo R square

0.040

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.527

10.8, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.02

0.751

0.552, 3.50

0.009

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.12

0.575

-0.002, 2.25

0.058

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.922

0.781

-2.45, 0.609

0.246

Pseudo R square

0.088

els

(Intercept)

28.4

0.921

26.6, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.32

1.313

0.743, 5.89

0.014

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.70

0.929

-0.125, 3.52

0.076

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.40

1.262

-3.88, 1.07

0.274

Pseudo R square

0.078

social_connect

(Intercept)

28.1

1.557

25.0, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.75

2.219

-6.10, 2.59

0.432

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.457

1.330

-2.15, 3.06

0.733

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.291

1.805

-3.83, 3.25

0.873

Pseudo R square

0.011

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.837

12.0, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.35

1.192

-0.982, 3.69

0.260

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.336

0.866

-1.36, 2.03

0.701

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.294

1.177

-2.01, 2.60

0.804

Pseudo R square

0.025

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.1

0.670

14.8, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.972

0.955

-0.900, 2.84

0.312

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.543

0.604

-0.640, 1.73

0.375

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.704

0.820

-2.31, 0.903

0.397

Pseudo R square

0.011

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.419

27.0, 32.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.33

2.022

-1.64, 6.29

0.254

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.824

1.299

-1.72, 3.37

0.530

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.331

1.763

-3.79, 3.12

0.852

Pseudo R square

0.020

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.238

12.3, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.250

0.339

-0.914, 0.415

0.463

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.419

0.417

-0.397, 1.24

0.322

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.195

0.572

-1.32, 0.926

0.736

Pseudo R square

0.024

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.592

13.7, 16.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.056

0.844

-1.60, 1.71

0.947

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.007

0.795

-1.55, 1.57

0.993

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.158

1.084

-2.28, 1.97

0.885

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.703

12.0, 14.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.163

1.002

-1.80, 2.13

0.871

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.108

0.889

-1.63, 1.85

0.904

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.035

1.209

-2.41, 2.34

0.977

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.181

25.9, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.219

1.682

-3.08, 3.52

0.897

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.102

1.516

-2.87, 3.07

0.947

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.191

2.064

-4.24, 3.86

0.927

Pseudo R square

0.000

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.688

17.7, 20.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.940

0.980

-0.981, 2.86

0.341

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.210

0.707

-1.18, 1.60

0.768

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.939

0.960

-2.82, 0.944

0.335

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.445

13.4, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.644

0.634

-0.599, 1.89

0.313

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.670

0.658

-0.619, 1.96

0.314

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.848

0.898

-2.61, 0.912

0.350

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.549

11.3, 13.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.02

0.783

-3.55, -0.484

0.012

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.972

0.589

-2.13, 0.183

0.108

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.53

0.801

-0.035, 3.10

0.063

Pseudo R square

0.066

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.7

0.641

9.48, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.31

0.913

-3.10, 0.478

0.155

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.002

0.596

-1.17, 1.17

0.998

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.839

0.808

-2.42, 0.745

0.306

Pseudo R square

0.050

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.6

0.656

9.36, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.71

0.935

-3.54, 0.124

0.072

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.317

0.645

-1.58, 0.947

0.626

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.361

0.876

-2.08, 1.35

0.682

Pseudo R square

0.060

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.79

0.684

7.45, 10.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.915

0.975

-2.83, 0.995

0.351

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.830

0.607

-0.359, 2.02

0.180

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.60

0.823

-3.21, 0.013

0.060

Pseudo R square

0.040

sss

(Intercept)

30.2

1.832

26.6, 33.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.93

2.610

-9.05, 1.18

0.136

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.593

1.531

-2.41, 3.59

0.701

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.87

2.077

-6.95, 1.20

0.175

Pseudo R square

0.056

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.76, 3.59], t(94) = 14.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.57], t(94) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.98], t(94) = 0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.79])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.98], t(94) = 0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.76 (95% CI [16.84, 18.69], t(94) = 37.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.61], t(94) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.28], t(94) = -0.09, p = 0.929; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.34], t(94) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.86])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.86, 31.26], t(94) = 34.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.84], t(94) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.49], t(94) = 0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-2.69, 2.55], t(94) = -0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.85 (95% CI [11.18, 12.52], t(94) = 34.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.32], t(94) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-1.52, -0.12], t(94) = -2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.60], t(94) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.41 (95% CI [16.34, 18.49], t(94) = 31.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.67], t(94) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.39], t(94) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-0.26, 3.08], t(94) = 1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.88 (95% CI [11.94, 13.83], t(94) = 26.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.98], t(94) = 0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.18], t(94) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.93], t(94) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.44 (95% CI [9.70, 11.18], t(94) = 27.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.16], t(94) = -1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.60], t(94) = -0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.67], t(94) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.26 (95% CI [27.91, 34.62], t(94) = 18.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-6.38, 3.18], t(94) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-3.33, 1.64], t(94) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-3.28, 3.46], t(94) = 0.05, p = 0.960; Std. beta = 8.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.32 (95% CI [20.69, 23.95], t(94) = 26.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.80e-03, 95% CI [-2.31, 2.33], t(94) = 8.27e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 2.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.28], t(94) = -0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.10, 0.65], t(94) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.09 (95% CI [23.08, 27.10], t(94) = 24.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.95, 3.78], t(94) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.83], t(94) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-2.20, 3.16], t(94) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [16.62, 21.32], t(94) = 15.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 6.44], t(94) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.91])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.70, 3.74], t(94) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-5.56, 1.84], t(94) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.46, 12.01], t(94) = 16.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.69], t(94) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.02], t(94) = 1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.07, 0.33], t(94) = -1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.94 (95% CI [13.14, 16.75], t(94) = 16.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-3.09, 2.06], t(94) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.31], t(94) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.62])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-4.29, 1.41], t(94) = -0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.53 (95% CI [19.43, 23.63], t(94) = 20.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.97], t(94) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.31, 3.31], t(94) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.21, 95% CI [-5.36, 0.93], t(94) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.21 (95% CI [14.71, 17.70], t(94) = 21.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.90], t(94) = 0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.04], t(94) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.12], t(94) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.25, 14.22], t(94) = 26.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.29], t(94) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.74], t(94) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.71], t(94) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.62 (95% CI [15.63, 17.61], t(94) = 32.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.70], t(94) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.72], t(94) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.57])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.88], t(94) = -0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [10.76, 12.83], t(94) = 22.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [0.55, 3.50], t(94) = 2.69, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.17, 1.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.84e-03, 2.25], t(94) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-5.81e-04, 0.71])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.61], t(94) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.41 (95% CI [26.61, 30.22], t(94) = 30.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.32, 95% CI [0.74, 5.89], t(94) = 2.53, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.13, 1.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 3.52], t(94) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.63])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-3.88, 1.07], t(94) = -1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.09 (95% CI [25.04, 31.14], t(94) = 18.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.75, 95% CI [-6.10, 2.59], t(94) = -0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-2.15, 3.06], t(94) = 0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-3.83, 3.25], t(94) = -0.16, p = 0.872; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.68 (95% CI [12.04, 15.32], t(94) = 16.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.69], t(94) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.03], t(94) = 0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.60], t(94) = 0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.09 (95% CI [14.77, 17.40], t(94) = 24.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.84], t(94) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.73], t(94) = 0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.31, 0.90], t(94) = -0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [26.98, 32.55], t(94) = 20.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.33, 95% CI [-1.64, 6.29], t(94) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.72, 3.37], t(94) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-3.79, 3.12], t(94) = -0.19, p = 0.851; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.12) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.76 (95% CI [12.30, 13.23], t(94) = 53.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.41], t(94) = -0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.24], t(94) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.89])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.93], t(94) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.24e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.85 (95% CI [13.69, 16.01], t(94) = 25.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.71], t(94) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.08e-03, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.57], t(94) = 8.90e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 2.09e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.97], t(94) = -0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.76e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.00, 14.76], t(94) = 19.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.80, 2.13], t(94) = 0.16, p = 0.871; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.85], t(94) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-2.41, 2.34], t(94) = -0.03, p = 0.977; Std. beta = -8.58e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.73e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [25.92, 30.55], t(94) = 23.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-3.08, 3.52], t(94) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.87, 3.07], t(94) = 0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-4.24, 3.86], t(94) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.03 (95% CI [17.68, 20.38], t(94) = 27.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.86], t(94) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.60], t(94) = 0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.94], t(94) = -0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.26 (95% CI [13.39, 15.14], t(94) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.89], t(94) = 1.02, p = 0.310; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.96], t(94) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.76])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.91], t(94) = -0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.38 (95% CI [11.31, 13.46], t(94) = 22.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.02, 95% CI [-3.55, -0.48], t(94) = -2.58, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.08, -0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.18], t(94) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.10], t(94) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.48, 11.99], t(94) = 16.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.10, 0.48], t(94) = -1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71e-03, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.17], t(94) = -2.87e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = -4.43e-04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.75], t(94) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.36, 11.93], t(94) = 16.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-3.54, 0.12], t(94) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.95], t(94) = -0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.35], t(94) = -0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.79 (95% CI [7.45, 10.14], t(94) = 12.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.83, 1.00], t(94) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.02], t(94) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-3.21, 0.01], t(94) = -1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.81, 3.15e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.18 (95% CI [26.59, 33.77], t(94) = 16.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.93, 95% CI [-9.05, 1.18], t(94) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-2.41, 3.59], t(94) = 0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.87, 95% CI [-6.95, 1.20], t(94) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

327.883

335.698

-160.941

321.883

recovery_stage_a

random

6

331.613

347.244

-159.806

319.613

2.270

3

0.518

recovery_stage_b

null

3

481.181

488.997

-237.591

475.181

recovery_stage_b

random

6

486.117

501.748

-237.058

474.117

1.064

3

0.786

ras_confidence

null

3

590.782

598.598

-292.391

584.782

ras_confidence

random

6

594.696

610.327

-291.348

582.696

2.086

3

0.555

ras_willingness

null

3

404.128

411.944

-199.064

398.128

ras_willingness

random

6

403.966

419.597

-195.983

391.966

6.162

3

0.104

ras_goal

null

3

500.557

508.373

-247.279

494.557

ras_goal

random

6

503.283

518.914

-245.641

491.283

3.275

3

0.351

ras_reliance

null

3

468.586

476.402

-231.293

462.586

ras_reliance

random

6

467.532

483.163

-227.766

455.532

7.054

3

0.070

ras_domination

null

3

439.409

447.224

-216.704

433.409

ras_domination

random

6

440.985

456.616

-214.493

428.985

4.424

3

0.219

symptom

null

3

699.414

707.230

-346.707

693.414

symptom

random

6

704.041

719.672

-346.020

692.041

1.374

3

0.712

slof_work

null

3

566.535

574.350

-280.267

560.535

slof_work

random

6

568.234

583.865

-278.117

556.234

4.301

3

0.231

slof_relationship

null

3

615.728

623.544

-304.864

609.728

slof_relationship

random

6

619.452

635.083

-303.726

607.452

2.277

3

0.517

satisfaction

null

3

658.174

665.989

-326.087

652.174

satisfaction

random

6

660.604

676.235

-324.302

648.604

3.569

3

0.312

mhc_emotional

null

3

525.231

533.047

-259.616

519.231

mhc_emotional

random

6

528.342

543.973

-258.171

516.342

2.889

3

0.409

mhc_social

null

3

603.923

611.738

-298.961

597.923

mhc_social

random

6

608.022

623.653

-298.011

596.022

1.901

3

0.593

mhc_psychological

null

3

630.963

638.778

-312.481

624.963

mhc_psychological

random

6

634.873

650.504

-311.437

622.873

2.089

3

0.554

resilisnce

null

3

557.136

564.951

-275.568

551.136

resilisnce

random

6

561.009

576.641

-274.505

549.009

2.126

3

0.547

social_provision

null

3

482.111

489.926

-238.055

476.111

social_provision

random

6

485.649

501.280

-236.824

473.649

2.462

3

0.482

els_value_living

null

3

482.026

489.841

-238.013

476.026

els_value_living

random

6

483.723

499.354

-235.862

471.723

4.302

3

0.231

els_life_fulfill

null

3

496.750

504.565

-245.375

490.750

els_life_fulfill

random

6

492.638

508.269

-240.319

480.638

10.111

3

0.018

els

null

3

602.533

610.348

-298.266

596.533

els

random

6

599.576

615.207

-293.788

587.576

8.957

3

0.030

social_connect

null

3

689.090

696.906

-341.545

683.090

social_connect

random

6

694.221

709.852

-341.110

682.221

0.870

3

0.833

shs_agency

null

3

578.324

586.140

-286.162

572.324

shs_agency

random

6

581.878

597.509

-284.939

569.878

2.446

3

0.485

shs_pathway

null

3

524.633

532.449

-259.317

518.633

shs_pathway

random

6

528.953

544.584

-258.476

516.953

1.680

3

0.641

shs

null

3

675.878

683.694

-334.939

669.878

shs

random

6

679.924

695.555

-333.962

667.924

1.954

3

0.582

esteem

null

3

353.320

361.136

-173.660

347.320

esteem

random

6

356.862

372.493

-172.431

344.862

2.458

3

0.483

mlq_search

null

3

522.061

529.876

-258.030

516.061

mlq_search

random

6

528.016

543.647

-258.008

516.016

0.044

3

0.998

mlq_presence

null

3

553.026

560.842

-273.513

547.026

mlq_presence

random

6

558.973

574.604

-273.487

546.973

0.053

3

0.997

mlq

null

3

657.495

665.310

-325.747

651.495

mlq

random

6

663.475

679.106

-325.738

651.475

0.019

3

0.999

empower

null

3

538.252

546.068

-266.126

532.252

empower

random

6

542.329

557.960

-265.165

530.329

1.923

3

0.589

ismi_resistance

null

3

471.522

479.338

-232.761

465.522

ismi_resistance

random

6

475.857

491.488

-231.929

463.857

1.665

3

0.645

ismi_discrimation

null

3

502.341

510.156

-248.170

496.341

ismi_discrimation

random

6

499.914

515.545

-243.957

487.914

8.427

3

0.038

sss_affective

null

3

521.383

529.199

-257.692

515.383

sss_affective

random

6

521.895

537.526

-254.948

509.895

5.488

3

0.139

sss_behavior

null

3

529.737

537.552

-261.868

523.737

sss_behavior

random

6

530.066

545.697

-259.033

518.066

5.671

3

0.129

sss_cognitive

null

3

531.752

539.568

-262.876

525.752

sss_cognitive

random

6

532.049

547.680

-260.024

520.049

5.704

3

0.127

sss

null

3

725.546

733.362

-359.773

719.546

sss

random

6

725.283

740.914

-356.641

713.283

6.263

3

0.099

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

34

3.18 ± 1.24

33

3.15 ± 1.24

0.934

0.024

recovery_stage_a

2nd

15

3.49 ± 1.23

-0.298

18

3.53 ± 1.23

-0.359

0.929

-0.037

recovery_stage_b

1st

34

17.76 ± 2.74

33

18.06 ± 2.74

0.660

-0.145

recovery_stage_b

2nd

15

17.70 ± 2.62

0.030

18

18.50 ± 2.64

-0.216

0.387

-0.390

ras_confidence

1st

34

29.56 ± 5.06

33

30.97 ± 5.06

0.258

-0.501

ras_confidence

2nd

15

30.12 ± 4.36

-0.198

18

31.45 ± 4.50

-0.172

0.390

-0.474

ras_willingness

1st

34

11.85 ± 2.00

33

12.21 ± 2.00

0.464

-0.353

ras_willingness

2nd

15

11.03 ± 1.67

0.806

18

12.03 ± 1.74

0.175

0.096

-0.983

ras_goal

1st

34

17.41 ± 3.20

33

17.55 ± 3.20

0.865

-0.075

ras_goal

2nd

15

16.58 ± 2.76

0.464

18

18.12 ± 2.85

-0.321

0.119

-0.859

ras_reliance

1st

34

12.88 ± 2.82

33

13.52 ± 2.82

0.361

-0.483

ras_reliance

2nd

15

13.16 ± 2.29

-0.209

18

14.48 ± 2.40

-0.736

0.109

-1.009

ras_domination

1st

34

10.44 ± 2.20

33

9.55 ± 2.20

0.100

0.564

ras_domination

2nd

15

9.99 ± 2.08

0.283

18

10.33 ± 2.10

-0.495

0.645

-0.213

symptom

1st

34

31.26 ± 9.98

33

29.67 ± 9.98

0.514

0.452

symptom

2nd

15

30.42 ± 7.56

0.238

18

28.91 ± 8.07

0.214

0.580

0.428

slof_work

1st

34

22.32 ± 4.85

33

22.33 ± 4.85

0.993

-0.005

slof_work

2nd

15

22.22 ± 3.80

0.051

18

21.01 ± 4.02

0.671

0.376

0.615

slof_relationship

1st

34

25.09 ± 5.98

33

26.00 ± 5.98

0.535

-0.320

slof_relationship

2nd

15

23.95 ± 4.90

0.400

18

25.34 ± 5.12

0.232

0.429

-0.488

satisfaction

1st

34

18.97 ± 6.99

33

22.06 ± 6.99

0.075

-0.775

satisfaction

2nd

15

19.99 ± 6.07

-0.255

18

21.22 ± 6.26

0.212

0.569

-0.308

mhc_emotional

1st

34

10.74 ± 3.80

33

11.61 ± 3.80

0.351

-0.482

mhc_emotional

2nd

15

11.51 ± 3.11

-0.427

18

11.01 ± 3.25

0.330

0.655

0.275

mhc_social

1st

34

14.94 ± 5.37

33

14.42 ± 5.37

0.695

0.168

mhc_social

2nd

15

16.16 ± 4.67

-0.396

18

14.20 ± 4.81

0.072

0.240

0.637

mhc_psychological

1st

34

21.53 ± 6.24

33

22.52 ± 6.24

0.520

-0.292

mhc_psychological

2nd

15

22.53 ± 5.32

-0.296

18

21.30 ± 5.50

0.359

0.518

0.363

resilisnce

1st

34

16.21 ± 4.46

33

16.97 ± 4.46

0.485

-0.357

resilisnce

2nd

15

16.76 ± 3.66

-0.260

18

17.63 ± 3.82

-0.309

0.508

-0.405

social_provision

1st

34

13.24 ± 2.93

33

14.12 ± 2.93

0.219

-0.539

social_provision

2nd

15

12.85 ± 2.53

0.232

18

13.92 ± 2.61

0.123

0.238

-0.648

els_value_living

1st

34

16.62 ± 2.94

33

17.91 ± 2.94

0.077

-0.827

els_value_living

2nd

15

17.27 ± 2.50

-0.416

18

17.98 ± 2.59

-0.048

0.420

-0.459

els_life_fulfill

1st

34

11.79 ± 3.07

33

13.82 ± 3.07

0.009

-1.234

els_life_fulfill

2nd

15

12.92 ± 2.61

-0.685

18

14.02 ± 2.70

-0.124

0.238

-0.672

els

1st

34

28.41 ± 5.37

33

31.73 ± 5.37

0.014

-1.258

els

2nd

15

30.11 ± 4.44

-0.644

18

32.02 ± 4.63

-0.112

0.230

-0.726

social_connect

1st

34

28.09 ± 9.08

33

26.33 ± 9.08

0.432

0.470

social_connect

2nd

15

28.54 ± 7.13

-0.122

18

26.50 ± 7.53

-0.044

0.426

0.548

shs_agency

1st

34

13.68 ± 4.88

33

15.03 ± 4.88

0.260

-0.550

shs_agency

2nd

15

14.01 ± 4.07

-0.136

18

15.66 ± 4.23

-0.256

0.258

-0.669

shs_pathway

1st

34

16.09 ± 3.91

33

17.06 ± 3.91

0.312

-0.572

shs_pathway

2nd

15

16.63 ± 3.12

-0.320

18

16.90 ± 3.28

0.094

0.810

-0.158

shs

1st

34

29.76 ± 8.27

33

32.09 ± 8.27

0.254

-0.636

shs

2nd

15

30.59 ± 6.63

-0.225

18

32.58 ± 6.97

-0.135

0.402

-0.546

esteem

1st

34

12.76 ± 1.39

33

12.52 ± 1.39

0.463

0.189

esteem

2nd

15

13.18 ± 1.41

-0.318

18

12.74 ± 1.40

-0.170

0.368

0.337

mlq_search

1st

34

14.85 ± 3.45

33

14.91 ± 3.45

0.947

-0.024

mlq_search

2nd

15

14.86 ± 3.19

-0.003

18

14.76 ± 3.24

0.065

0.928

0.044

mlq_presence

1st

34

13.38 ± 4.10

33

13.55 ± 4.10

0.871

-0.063

mlq_presence

2nd

15

13.49 ± 3.69

-0.042

18

13.62 ± 3.77

-0.028

0.922

-0.050

mlq

1st

34

28.24 ± 6.88

33

28.45 ± 6.88

0.897

-0.050

mlq

2nd

15

28.34 ± 6.23

-0.023

18

28.37 ± 6.36

0.020

0.990

-0.007

empower

1st

34

19.03 ± 4.01

33

19.97 ± 4.01

0.341

-0.468

empower

2nd

15

19.24 ± 3.34

-0.105

18

19.24 ± 3.47

0.363

0.999

-0.001

ismi_resistance

1st

34

14.26 ± 2.60

33

14.91 ± 2.60

0.313

-0.328

ismi_resistance

2nd

15

14.93 ± 2.49

-0.341

18

14.73 ± 2.51

0.091

0.816

0.104

ismi_discrimation

1st

34

12.38 ± 3.20

33

10.36 ± 3.20

0.012

1.202

ismi_discrimation

2nd

15

11.41 ± 2.70

0.579

18

10.93 ± 2.80

-0.335

0.616

0.288

sss_affective

1st

34

10.74 ± 3.74

33

9.42 ± 3.74

0.155

0.781

sss_affective

2nd

15

10.73 ± 3.01

0.001

18

8.58 ± 3.16

0.501

0.048

1.281

sss_behavior

1st

34

10.65 ± 3.83

33

8.94 ± 3.83

0.072

0.936

sss_behavior

2nd

15

10.33 ± 3.13

0.174

18

8.26 ± 3.27

0.372

0.067

1.134

sss_cognitive

1st

34

8.79 ± 3.99

33

7.88 ± 3.99

0.351

0.537

sss_cognitive

2nd

15

9.62 ± 3.17

-0.487

18

7.11 ± 3.34

0.452

0.029

1.475

sss

1st

34

30.18 ± 10.68

33

26.24 ± 10.68

0.136

0.917

sss

2nd

15

30.77 ± 8.34

-0.138

18

23.96 ± 8.82

0.532

0.025

1.586

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(91.18) = -0.08, p = 0.934, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.58)

2st

t(94.67) = 0.09, p = 0.929, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(85.85) = 0.44, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.63)

2st

t(94.08) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.03 to 2.62)

ras_confidence

1st

t(76.00) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.05 to 3.87)

2st

t(95.76) = 0.86, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.73 to 4.41)

ras_willingness

1st

t(74.05) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.33)

2st

t(96.00) = 1.68, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.18)

ras_goal

1st

t(76.19) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.69)

2st

t(95.72) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.40 to 3.49)

ras_reliance

1st

t(72.42) = 0.92, p = 0.361, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.01)

2st

t(95.63) = 1.62, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.95)

ras_domination

1st

t(84.35) = -1.66, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.17)

2st

t(94.12) = 0.46, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.79)

symptom

1st

t(69.13) = -0.66, p = 0.514, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-6.46 to 3.27)

2st

t(90.70) = -0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-6.93 to 3.90)

slof_work

1st

t(70.56) = 0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.35 to 2.37)

2st

t(93.84) = -0.89, p = 0.376, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-3.92 to 1.49)

slof_relationship

1st

t(72.80) = 0.62, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.00 to 3.83)

2st

t(95.79) = 0.80, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.08 to 4.86)

satisfaction

1st

t(76.58) = 1.81, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.31 to 6.49)

2st

t(95.63) = 0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-3.04 to 5.50)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(72.79) = 0.94, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.72)

2st

t(95.79) = -0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.70 to 1.70)

mhc_social

1st

t(76.66) = -0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.13 to 2.10)

2st

t(95.61) = -1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-5.24 to 1.33)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(75.32) = 0.65, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.02)

2st

t(95.89) = -0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-4.98 to 2.53)

resilisnce

1st

t(72.96) = 0.70, p = 0.485, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.93)

2st

t(95.84) = 0.66, p = 0.508, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.46)

social_provision

1st

t(76.19) = 1.24, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.31)

2st

t(95.72) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.85)

els_value_living

1st

t(74.89) = 1.79, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.72)

2st

t(95.95) = 0.81, p = 0.420, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.48)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(75.01) = 2.69, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.23, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.52)

2st

t(95.94) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.94)

els

1st

t(73.33) = 2.53, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.70 to 5.93)

2st

t(95.93) = 1.21, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.23 to 5.05)

social_connect

1st

t(70.67) = -0.79, p = 0.432, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.18 to 2.67)

2st

t(94.02) = -0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-7.13 to 3.03)

shs_agency

1st

t(73.86) = 1.14, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.73)

2st

t(95.99) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.23 to 4.52)

shs_pathway

1st

t(71.40) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.88)

2st

t(94.90) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.48)

shs

1st

t(71.64) = 1.15, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.70 to 6.36)

2st

t(95.12) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-2.71 to 6.70)

esteem

1st

t(95.45) = -0.74, p = 0.463, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.42)

2st

t(95.81) = -0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.53)

mlq_search

1st

t(81.83) = 0.07, p = 0.947, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.74)

2st

t(94.39) = -0.09, p = 0.928, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.33 to 2.13)

mlq_presence

1st

t(79.42) = 0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.83 to 2.16)

2st

t(94.89) = 0.10, p = 0.922, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.46 to 2.71)

mlq

1st

t(80.04) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-3.13 to 3.57)

2st

t(94.75) = 0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-4.34 to 4.40)

empower

1st

t(73.70) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.01 to 2.89)

2st

t(95.98) = 0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.36 to 2.36)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(86.46) = 1.02, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.91)

2st

t(94.09) = -0.23, p = 0.816, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.94 to 1.53)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(74.63) = -2.58, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-3.58 to -0.46)

2st

t(95.98) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.39 to 1.42)

sss_affective

1st

t(71.88) = -1.44, p = 0.155, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.51)

2st

t(95.31) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-4.29 to -0.02)

sss_behavior

1st

t(72.83) = -1.83, p = 0.072, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-3.57 to 0.16)

2st

t(95.80) = -1.85, p = 0.067, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-4.29 to 0.15)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(71.17) = -0.94, p = 0.351, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.03)

2st

t(94.66) = -2.22, p = 0.029, Cohen d = 1.48, 95% CI (-4.77 to -0.26)

sss

1st

t(70.40) = -1.51, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-9.14 to 1.27)

2st

t(93.59) = -2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.59, 95% CI (-12.75 to -0.86)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(45.75) = 1.16, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.02)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(41.75) = 0.69, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.74)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(36.21) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.33)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(35.24) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.49)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(36.31) = 0.99, p = 0.654, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.75)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(34.45) = 2.25, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.83)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(40.80) = 1.57, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.80)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(32.90) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.13 to 1.61)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.57) = -2.04, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.64 to -0.01)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(34.63) = -0.71, p = 0.963, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.55 to 1.23)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(36.50) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.45 to 1.76)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(34.63) = -1.01, p = 0.638, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.60)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(36.54) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.23 to 1.79)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(35.87) = -1.11, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.00)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(34.71) = 0.95, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.08)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(36.30) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.87)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(35.66) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(35.72) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.28)

els

1st vs 2st

t(34.89) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.04)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.62) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.32 to 2.65)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(35.15) = 0.79, p = 0.873, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.25)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(33.97) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.97)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(34.08) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.94 to 2.92)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(51.38) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.02)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(39.31) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.35)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(37.98) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.75)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(38.32) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.94 to 2.77)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(35.07) = -1.12, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.60)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(42.15) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.07)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(35.53) = 1.03, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.67)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(34.19) = -1.53, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.27)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(34.65) = -1.14, p = 0.525, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.53)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(33.86) = -1.38, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.36)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.49) = -1.62, p = 0.229, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.58)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(49.92) = 0.90, p = 0.744, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.01)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(44.69) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.46 to 1.34)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(37.54) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.57)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(36.31) = -2.28, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.09)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(37.66) = -1.32, p = 0.390, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.11 to 0.44)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(35.30) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.22)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(43.45) = -0.83, p = 0.825, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.64)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(33.35) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.75)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(34.19) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.34)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(35.53) = -1.13, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.19 to 0.91)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(37.91) = 0.73, p = 0.943, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.81 to 3.85)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(35.53) = 1.20, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.07)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(37.96) = 1.13, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.96 to 3.40)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(37.11) = 0.84, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.41 to 3.41)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(35.63) = 0.73, p = 0.936, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.10)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(37.66) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.79)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(36.84) = 1.18, p = 0.493, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.77)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(36.91) = 1.94, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.30)

els

1st vs 2st

t(35.86) = 1.82, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.20 to 3.59)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(34.26) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.26 to 3.17)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(36.19) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.10)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(34.69) = 0.90, p = 0.753, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.78)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(34.83) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.83 to 3.47)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(57.19) = 0.99, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.26)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(41.53) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.63)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(39.81) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.70 to 1.92)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(40.24) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.99 to 3.19)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(36.09) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.65)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(45.21) = 1.01, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.01)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(36.67) = -1.64, p = 0.220, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.17 to 0.23)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(34.98) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.21)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(35.56) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(34.56) = 1.36, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(34.10) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.53 to 3.72)

Plot

Clinical significance